13
votes
With meta-discussions high-quality content meaning civil disagreement, let's put it to the test: What constitutes as a sandwich?
So, where do you draw the limits on what constitutes as a sandwich?
I am kind of fond of this alignment chart as a starting point.
I think I fall somewhere around True Neutral-ish. While I think everything in the structural purist row constitutes as a sandwich, I do not consider Choctacos, burritos or poptarts sandwiches.
Speaking of poptarts, potential spin-off debate: Is a poptart a ravioli?
I feel like sliced bread plays a big part in this. If you use a bun, you've got a burger of somesort. Small bun, you've got a slider. If you use a french type loaf you end up with a sub, hoagie, po-boy, bahn mi, etc. If you use flatbread you end up with a wrap.
It seems like the bread being cut on both sides contributes to the definition.
What if you had a whole loaf of sliced bread but are down to the last two pieces: One that's been sliced on both sides, and one that's only sliced on one side, a.k.a. the heel of the loaf. If you use those two pieces, is it still a sandwich? If you use two heels is it still a sandwich?
That's not a sandwich, it's a disgrace. No one should eat that. The heels are garbage. You're asking if you can make a sandwich out of garbage.
Call it a sandwich if you like, but it's a hypothetical anyway, since no one would ever eat such a thing.
Depending on the bread, the crust can be delicious, making the heels the best part, potentially.
Heels are quite literally why I eat french bread. The rest is just part of the journey to that delicious heel!
:D
I've been in desperate sandwich circumstances before. Sometimes you're just not paying enough attention to how much bread is left in the bag. It's called a "disappointment sandwich."
My people have always called it the butt of the bread.
I feel like I've had burgers from Shake Shack and po-boys and subs.. from various establishments where they don't completely cut through the bread to make two separate slices. Is this a sandwich limbo? Or is it about intent?
If the bun forms a continuous manifold it's technically open-face, but in the case of subs etc that's not really a concern.
That said, the oldschool way subway used to cut their bread (the "v-gouge") was infinitely superior. It's a shame the maneuver was deemed too dangerous and banned from franchise use.
So, tartines: Sandwich or no? Sandwich pre-evolution?
Also, I cannot tell if you are joking or not, but please explain why the v-gouge was too dangerous and banned.
Hmm, tough one. I feel like open-faced sandwiches miss the sandwich's very raison d'etre — to be eaten with one hand. Bruschetta and such are appetizers, whereas to me a sandwich is a meal. If you've got a full size open-face "sandwich" like a steak sandwich or a hot turkey sandwich, it needs to be eaten with a fork and knife, defeating the entire reason for the sandwich's existence.
Not being entirely serious, no, but the story behind the V-gouge is, like 20yrs ago they used to cut the buns differently. Instead of slicing down the side, "the flap", they cut the top off by slicing two gouges down the length of the bun, then pulling out the long triangle-shaped piece leaving a hollow in the bread. This groove kept the ingredients more centered and evenly distributed. The new cut forces the ingredients out the side when they close the bun.
The reason it was discontinued was probably just that cutting down the side is much faster, but I've heard that some people have stabbed themselves when doing it since they'd hold the bun in their hand instead of putting it on the counter, and that was a part of the reason they changed it.
Oh wow that is a blast from the past. I didn't even notice when the v-groove cut disappeared. I don't know why they didn't just modify a bread slicer to cut the groove as the skill of the cutter made a huge difference. The sandwich looked a lot better than a generic sub and was cleaner to eat.
I don't think I ever noticed the v-gouge (but I may have also been too young), but yes, it does sound like it would be better for holding in ingredients. I guess the sacrifice is also that you are missing out on the bread :/
Oh, no, they cut the section out, fill it with goodies, then put the gouge of bread back on top as a lid.
Think "shooter's sandwich" where they hollow out a round loaf, except elongated. You're not losing out on any bread, they're just cutting it differently.
Here's the best pic I could find. The idea being the contents of the sub stay inside the sub rather than sliding off into left field when you close the bun.
OH WOW. That is not at all what I expected to see. It makes sense, though, but I can also see how bigger businesses might cut down on that method for efficiency?
Structure neutral, ingredient purist. As soon as you remove bread, it is not a sandwich. I might have said true neutral, but a hot dog is clearly its own form of food.
Also, a Poptart is not a ravioli. I am with the first person who says, its not pasta, therefore it is not ravioli.
So you are consistent! When you say "its not pasta," that means you judge whether poptarts are ravioli or not by the ingredient purity as well.
And would you mind expanding on why you see a hot dog as its own form of food?
Aside from the rather dubious argument that it is not a sandwich because it has an exposed top, instead of exposed side(s), a hot dog is a piece of meat in a bun with condiments on top. You cannot add more things to a hot dog, it only has one main ingredient. One of the key features of a sandwich, on the other hand, is that you add several ingredients. You have a meat, a cheese, lettuce, tomatoes, etc. The sandwhich's adaptability is one of its key features, which the hot dog lacks.
A counter point: A hot dog may have e.g. chili and cheese, perhaps even onions added. The increase in number of ingredients does not have an effect on the classification.
Additionally, a tuna sandwich often involves tuna, mayo, and possibly relish. These are three ingredients that are often turned into a homogeneous (or nearly homogeneous) paste. A sauce, however, may also be multiple ingredients turned into a homogeneous paste, but that does not make sauce between two slices of bread a sandwich.
I think there are a few factors to consider:
By your argument, a hot dog would be a sandwich, correct? It is sandwiched between buns, which can be viewed as two pieces of bread. It has an ingredient of substance, and it is eaten in a similar way to a typical sandwich.
Incorrect. The intended way to eat a hot dog is open side up, rather than horizontally. Rather than being ingredients sandwiched together between bread/buns, the hot dog bun is instead intended to be more like a "bowl" of sorts, holding the ingredients in place like a vessel. That difference in intent is subtle but important.
That being said, you could cut up a hotdog (or lay down multiple hot dogs) on a slice of bread, add any optional additional ingredients you want, and place the final slice of bread on top, and that would constitute a sandwich.
I'm structural purist, ingredient neutral :)
So if I rotate a hot dog 90 degrees, am I now eating a sandwich?
That's the more difficult question. With additional ingredients, no, as the structure loses all stability. Plain, or with condiments on the sides (on the bun itself)... debatable. I would argue not due to the intent of the bun, but it's a gray area.
I'm going to have to go with @Emerald_Knight here on the hot dog part. The chili-cheese dog is a classic dish, that involves multiple ingredients. Relish and onions are also frequently added.
I hate to say it, but you have convinced me. The chili-cheese dog seems to be a sandwich, particularly if one rotates it 90 degrees. It has multiple main ingredients, it has bread, and its eaten similarly to a sandwich. I cannot find a good reason to justify it not being a sandwich.
I am still not very convinced. A hot dog is a sausage between buns with other condiments added. As long as it has a whole sausage in it, it's a hot dog, not a sandwich.
For some odd reason I have trouble saying why this is not a sandwich. Could you give a good reason?
First of all, its shape is long and cylindrical, while I usually associate sandwiches with squares and rectangles.
It's made of buns, which I don't really consider true bread because of how fluffy and not chewy it is, and its sides are attached. This also means that there's not a lot of room for other stuff other than the sausage, while I see sandwiches as an equal combination of ingredients.
Overall I just see hot dogs as a lower quality than sandwiches. If it were made of good bread and sausage with lettuce, tomatoes and such in it, maybe it's a sandwich. But I tend to think of hot dogs as its own separate thing because of how much of it is just sausage and buns.
I'd mentioned this in my own comment above, but the difference is in how the ingredients are held in place. A hot dog's bun is intended to hold the ingredients in place loosely, like a bowl does, whereas a sandwich holds the ingredients in via stacking and using the two slices of bread for stability. It's a very different structure.
Again, if you cut out the loose ingredients and hold the plain hotdog sideways, it then becomes debatable, but the structure of the food is an important determining factor.
Just for clarity, is it only the chili-cheese dog that is a sandwich or all hot dogs?
I think all are, because you can add more main ingredients, which is what I was held up on. It still feels wrong, but I cannot justify it not being a sandwich at the moment.
It may feel wrong, but you know what will feel right? Eating the hot dog.
Also, just for the record, carrot hot dogs weird me out.
Figuring out what exactly constitutes a sandwich is a young person's game. As I get older I get more comfortable with ambiguity in my life.
"Grandpa, is this a sandwich?"
"Sure, kid. Sure."
"... Grandpa, this is a shoe."
"Whatever you say, kid."
This is me in 30 years, minus actually having offspring.
Exactly. The older I get the less I care about what it is classified as and more about whether it tastes good.
Structural purist, ingredient rebel. The verb "sandwich" means to place between two things, so as long as that's happening somehow, I'll accept it.
I have always been an extreme radical anarchist as far as this topic goes, and have given it in-depth consideration. My theory is that EVERY culture has an equivalent of 'sandwich'. 'Bread' and 'filling' (sometimes 'topping') are the requirements.
Bread: something made from grain. Includes pizza crust, taco shells, waffles, pancakes, quinoa, rice cakes, naan, and even some 'grain items' that may be made out of vegetables, such as cornbread, latkes, or hash browns. So maybe rather than grain, the defining feature of the 'bread' is carbs.
Filling: no limits.
The most non-traditional 'sandwiches' in my opinion:
Sushi. Grain (rice) with filling.
Pizza. Bread, with filling. Fold in half to recreate structure.
Taco. Self-explanatory. Includes all -itos and -adas and -illas, anything with torta.
Flatbread dipped in hummus becomes sandwich. Also can spread open faced, fold that to recreate taco-like structure.
Pop-tart. Part of me wants to reject, but meets criteria. Includes toaster strudels.
Pasta with sauce. Extreme anarchy.
This is kind of like how I feel that almost every culture has their own version of a chicken and rice (or similar) soup/porridge.
IMO, soup is very different from porridge. Soup is water/broth/milk based with bits in, and porridge/congee/gruel/cereal is a grain/nut/seed cooked in liquid to a soupy consistency. I do agree that both of these seem to be culturally ubiquitous.
Does it looks like a sandwich? Does it taste like a sandwich? It's a sandwich.
ELSE: It's not a sandwich.
You are not getting away that easy. Please list 5 examples of what both looks and tastes like a sandwich, including some potentially controversial ones—unless there are none, with a delineated "absolutely not." What looks like a sandwich may be subjective.
Uncontroversial:
Gatsby
Hero
Gyro
Po'Boy
Grinder
Beef on Weck
Controversial:
The Tramezzino
Bauru
Absolutely Not:
Hot Dog
Bun Kebabs
Bánh mì
It's the method of consumption that makes it a sandwich! Compare how you eat a hot dog or Bánh mì to how you eat a gyro.
"Sandwich" is a philosophy - a state of mind - an art form! It's not something that's simply black and white.
A gyro being a sandwich is very much subjective.
I think it's interesting that you list bánh mì as "absolutely not," and I'm curious as to why that is. I feel that it meets a lot of the standards other people have set for sandwiches and bread cuts/shapes.
Replying with what I said in my comment above:
I'm not sure I understand. I eat bánh mì similarly to how I'd eat a sub or a po boy
Then maybe it is a sandwich to you! My original answer left a lot of personal interpretation in, because everyone consumes food differently.
Fair enough! (However, I'm now interested in how you eat bánh mì that you feel is different from the method you use to eat a sandwich.)
I eat bánh mì like I would eat a hot dog. It just makes sense.
Interesting. I'm guessing that mine are cut differently, and thus all the way through, which is why I do not.
Probably!
It's ingredients between two pieces of bread. And only bread. A bun is not considered bread. Chicken between bun halves is not a chicken sandwich, it's a chicken hamburger ffs.
That being said, I personally prefer buns.
Simple: Any set of edible ingredients between two slices of bread. Any kind of bread (as long as it is, in fact, bread and not some other type of baked dough).
It might not be a good sandwich if you do something bizarre like throwing jell-o between two slices of bread, but it's a sandwich nonetheless
Ah, I see you are a structural purist but an ingredient rebel